Jump to content

O's should be re-evaluating their training methods


wildcard

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Cordova was one of the poster children of the era where the O’s acquired higher priced veteran players because the farm system was failing to develop talent. 

David Segui was one of the moves that ticked me off because surprise, surprise a mid 30’s Segui spent more  time on the disabled list than he did playing. 

Segui was someone I'd put in the same category as Nelson Cruz, as kind of a litmus test for a GM.  When the Orioles acquired him in 2001 he was 33 and coming off a year where he hit .334/.388/.510.  All three of those were career highs. 

If I were interviewing a GM one of my canned questions would be how they'd deal with a situation like that.  How would they value a soon-to-be 34-year-old coming off a career year, or nearly a career year.  My hope would be they'd say something like "well, while I accept that there are occasional players with late career surges, a typical player rapidly declines in their mid-30s and I'd expect this guy to lose 50-75% or even all of their value over the next few years.  I would only sign him to a short or team-friendly deal."

Syd Thrift looked at Segui and said, "young man, how'd you like a 4-year contract at $7M a year?"  Remember, in 2001 73-homer Barry Bonds was making $10M a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Syd Thrift looked at Segui and said, "young man, how'd you like a 4-year contract at $7M a year?"  Remember, in 2001 73-homer Barry Bonds was making $10M a year.

Brady was making $7.2 mm, Cal $6.3 mm for the O’s in Segui’s first year.   Ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yankees and Rays are two of the best run franchises in sports and have had a pretty remarkable amount of injuries over the past few seasons.  The Mets sign one of the most durable pitchers of our time in Scherzer and he almost immediately gets injured. Are the Mets' training methods that different than Washington's and is that a reason he sustained this injury? How would you then explain Strasburg? To me, it just seems like playing baseball is unnatural and avoiding injuries is mostly about luck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Type 2 cartilage supplement's should be what every baseball player takes to help improve their ligaments and tendons. Eating deboned chicken means you dont really get cartilage in your diet anymore.

What? Did I miss something? Do you think if you eat chicken cartilage, then the cartilage is somehow not going to be digested until it is not cartilage or is excreted? The ingested chicken cartilage is somehow going to be directly turned into or incorporated into human cartilage? Does that mean we need to eat chicken or similar bone to make human bone? Eat cow brains to make human brain cells? That's not how digestion works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Segui was someone I'd put in the same category as Nelson Cruz, as kind of a litmus test for a GM.  When the Orioles acquired him in 2001 he was 33 and coming off a year where he hit .334/.388/.510.  All three of those were career highs. 

If I were interviewing a GM one of my canned questions would be how they'd deal with a situation like that.  How would they value a soon-to-be 34-year-old coming off a career year, or nearly a career year.  My hope would be they'd say something like "well, while I accept that there are occasional players with late career surges, a typical player rapidly declines in their mid-30s and I'd expect this guy to lose 50-75% or even all of their value over the next few years.  I would only sign him to a short or team-friendly deal."

Syd Thrift looked at Segui and said, "young man, how'd you like a 4-year contract at $7M a year?"  Remember, in 2001 73-homer Barry Bonds was making $10M a year.

Also, 3 years before that Belle signed his 5 year/$65 million deal.  So if you said Segui was making 50-60% of the absolute top players at the time, that would be $15-20 mill/yr today.  The O's need to develop guys like Segui (obviously that deal turned out horribly) rather than pay them free agent rates.  Signings like Segui are what happens when you don't have a good farm system.  The O's were also in the let's just be competitive and give people a team to cheer for instead of going all out to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...